Jump to content

AndyK

Rub & Tug | Now a TV Series. ScarJo found dead in a ditch! | Trans Rights are Human Rights

Recommended Posts

I mean with Ghost in the Shell you can (sorta kinda) get away with it from the excuse that she's a cyborg and cyborgs don't have a predefined race.  It's still whitewashing since it's taking an existing character from a source material and changing the race, but if it were an original film then it'd at least make some sort of sense as to why she was cast.

 

With this?  She's playing a REAL LIFE PERSON.  It's not even like it's a drama that was partially inspired by events that happened in real life, it's a fucking biopic.  She's cis and is playing someone who's trans when there's plenty of trans actors/actresses out there who are struggling for work.  And on top of this, she doesn't even look anything like the person it's based on.  What a mess.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites



5 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

If she came up with the story and cast herself, I'm sure she could've had a writer write in a female co-lead.

From what I understand it is a spec script.

 

https://theplaylist.net/fantastic-woman-filmmaker-rub-tug-20180706/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

‘A Fantastic Woman’ Filmmaker Defends Scarlett Johansson Casting As A Trans Man In ‘Rub & Tug’

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 hours ago, baumer said:

Maybe from now on we should only cast people who have experience in the roles they are taking. So we should all be mad at Sylvester Stallone and Robert De Niro for playing boxers. We should be really upset at Ellen Bernstyn for playing a drug addict. We should all be incredibly pissed off Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway for playing bank robbers and Bonnie and Clyde. In fact nobody in Hollywood should really be getting the roles they are getting Because unless they do research they don't have any knowledge of the roles they are taking on. Yeah I feel really comfortable with that.

You might have to bear with me here but a person's gender is kind of different from a skill or occupation they can just take up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



A person's gender has nothing to do with a casting decision. Hollywood and movies are for actors, they act. I'm fine with that and you should be too. I'm not coming in this thread anymore because I find this whole discussion absolutely ridiculous and pointless. You guys can carry on and worry about the fate of humankind until the movie comes out but this conversation is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, baumer said:

A person's gender has nothing to do with a casting decision. Hollywood and movies are for actors, they act. I'm fine with that and you should be too. I'm not coming in this thread anymore because I find this whole discussion absolutely ridiculous and pointless. You guys can carry on and worry about the fate of humankind until the movie comes out but this conversation is ridiculous.

The issue is that transgender actors/actresses struggle to get work because they are transgender, and whenever a high-profile transgender role comes along, it's for a cis white famous face seeking plaudits. That and Scarlett's addressing of the controversy wasn't the best look.

 

Then again, after all the uproar, I doubt this project will even take off now. Considering this is from the director of such classics as Snow White & the Huntsman (which also made him the rare director to become a tabloid item) and Ghost in the Shell, I doubt it'll be of any great loss.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites



The movie would have never been greenlit & financed without Scarjo.

Basic Maths for you, from the real world.

Don't thank Me, I value education & knowledge & enlightenment.

Edited by The Futurist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, filmlover said:

The issue is that transgender actors/actresses struggle to get work because they are transgender, and whenever a high-profile transgender role comes along, it's for a cis white famous face seeking plaudits. That and Scarlett's addressing of the controversy wasn't the best look.

 

Then again, after all the uproar, I doubt this project will even take off now. Considering this is from the director of such classics as Snow White & the Huntsman (which also made him the rare director to become a tabloid item) and Ghost in the Shell, I doubt it'll be of any great loss.

I think Scarjo is trash, plain and simple. Her response to the whole thing shows how callow she is and what a privileged piece of trash she is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



5 hours ago, ChipMunky said:

Regarding your last point, hiring Robbie to play a blonde, white woman, whether she was "poor and ugly" or not, isn't the same thing as this.

 

I highly doubt this film will cost more than $20 mil, due to the subject matter. In fact,  Scarlett will probably be a big chunk of the budget. Why couldn't she have just cast herself as a female co-lead? That would give the film it's star, and still would let them be able to cast an appropriate gendered actor.

 

 

It's obvious that this is the kind of role that she wants to pick due to the potential to be a "revelatory, astonishing transformation." You know....Oscar bait. That's all. Famewhoring at its worst, in search of the accolades that cisgender and hetero actors always get when playing transgender people or gay people.

Little thing though: she cannot act to save her life.

I say, let her do this and fall flat on her face, like Zoe playing Nina Simone.

 

johansson-gill-500x342.jpg

 

Edited by StevenG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are people still trying to use the star power excuse with Scarlett Johansson a year after proving that same excuse futile with Ghost in the Shell and Rough Night? Without the backlash, the movie is not gonna be a success either way. I have no grasping on how they are justifying a $30,000,000 budget for that movie with Scarlett Johansson when Scarlett Johansson is not big with moviegoers who go see those "prestige" movies to be honest. 

Edited by PenguinHyphy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, PenguinHyphy said:

Are people still trying to use the star power excuse with Scarlett Johansson a year after proving that same excuse futile with Ghost in the Shell and Rough Night? Without or without the backlash, the movie is not gonna be a success. I have no grasping on how they are justifying a $30,000,000 budget for that movie with Scarlett Johansson when Scarlett Johansson is not big with moviegoers who go see those "prestige" movies to be honest. 

Going by the tepid grosses of Rough Night and GITS, she is not big with moviegoers who like high-concept comedies or wannabe action blockbusters either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The A-list excuse was used for the 130mil Ghost in the Shell and that ended up flopping hardcore. It's time to start giving Trans actors a chance in these projects. 

 

Anyway outside of the casting Rub and Tug has a vapid untalented hack doing it so it's going to suck and flop and I look forward to being amused by the incoming disaster. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





17 hours ago, PenguinHyphy said:

Are people still trying to use the star power excuse with Scarlett Johansson a year after proving that same excuse futile with Ghost in the Shell and Rough Night? Without or without the backlash, the movie is not gonna be a success. I have no grasping on how they are justifying a $30,000,000 budget for that movie with Scarlett Johansson when Scarlett Johansson is not big with moviegoers who go see those "prestige" movies to be honest. 

Define excuse, she just got that project picked-up no ? Why do you think people accepted to invest in a Rupert Sanders movie like this one, you think Johansson being a big star (specially if the project release next to Black Widow) was not part of their decision ?

 

People need some level of precision here or we will be talking over each other, some seem to simplify the situation as if the people making the movie, financed it, distributing it and the exhibition were the same people so that a decision can easily be made by "they", like in the golden age. At least if this was a studio project (but now even those are almost always co-financed in part pre-sold to share risk) that would be closer to the truth but there is no studio involved here. But they are all different group (and even each category splitted in many different player, that all need the ok of the all the future one for it to work, often before even making the movie for it to get a go if the story require a big enough budget)

 

Do you mean to say world buyer's/pre-buyer and third party investor to not really care in reality about star attached to a project (director or actor) specially outside proven genre ? That people bringing that point are lying and that it is a film Internet made up myth ?

 

Or do you mean that maybe they do but they should stop doing so ?

 

As for Gits or RN, movie with a 44% RT rating not turning successful financially is not really that indicative of an audience rejection of the lead, even freaking Denzel movies can flop when they go rotten nowaday like Roman J Isreal, Bullock with Our Band is Crisis or Ferrel with The house (that did considerably less than Rough Nigh), you still need a movie obviously outside the franchise / well establish trope/genre that audience already love to work with.

 

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



17 hours ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

The A-list excuse was used for the 130mil Ghost in the Shell and that ended up flopping hardcore. It's time to start giving Trans actors a chance in these projects. 

 

Anyway outside of the casting Rub and Tug has a vapid untalented hack doing it so it's going to suck and flop and I look forward to being amused by the incoming disaster. 

It says more about the approach to the project with who the director is than who the star is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



17 minutes ago, Jay Beezy said:

It says more about the approach to the project with who the director is than who the star is.

I am shocked that Scarjo chose Rupert Sanders to direct her desperate Oscar plea. If she was going to do this she could at least have gotten a real director. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



16 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

I am shocked that Scarjo chose Rupert Sanders to direct her desperate Oscar plea. If she was going to do this she could at least have gotten a real director. 

Do we know if she is the one that chose Rupert or if he came up to her with the project idea ? There is always a bit of a "risk" (not that any of this matter) into projecting choice to someone without knowing the actual options or chain of events. Maybe the realistic choice were: Pass or do it pretty much like this.

Edited by Barnack
Link to comment
Share on other sites



5 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Do we know if she is the one that chose Rupert or if he came up to her with the project idea ? There is always a bit of a "risk" (not that any of this matter) into projecting choice to someone without knowing the actual options or chain of events. Maybe the realistic choice were: Pass or do it pretty much like this.

Everyone should have passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.